AYI AMMAL Vs. SUBRAMANIA ASARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the sister of one Kanniammal who died intestate on 7-7-1960. She is the childless widow of one Patta Achari, and Patta Achari's brother's sons are the respondents. This revision arises out of proceedings for the issue of a succession certificate in respect of the outstandings due on three promissory notes to the deceased Kanniammal. The learned District Munsif, on the evidence, finds that Kanniammal had been given properties by her father and that she sold jewels and lent amounts for interest. It is found that the promissory note amounts were her own acquisitions, the nucleus being gifts made to her by her father. It may be taken as uncontested that her husband did not contribute to any acquisition by her. The question in the circumstances is as to who is her heir, who gets the three dispute outstandings of Kanniammal.

(2.) THE learned District Judge, Chingleput has held that the respondents herein, as heirs of the husband of the deceased, are the persons that succeeded to these outstandings under S. 15 (1) (b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. On behalf of the sister, that is the present petitioner, it was contended that she would be the heir under S. 15 (2) (a) of the Act. But S. 15 (2) is an exception to the general provision for succession found in sub-section (1) of S. 15 applicable to case where the intestate woman had inherited properties either from her father or mother or from her husband or from her father-in-law and the question relates to such properties. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the word "inherited" in subsection (2) should be read so as to include also property acquired otherwise than by descent on the death of a previous owner. According to the petitioner S. 15 (2) (a) would include also property which the deceased woman had obtained by gift or settlement from her parents. Reading the entire S. 15 of the Act, it looks to me that where succession to a female Hindu generally is provided for under subsection (1), an exception has been engrafted under sub-section (2) recognising a different mode of devolution in respect of property which the woman acquired by inheritance, in away to a very limited extent recognising the old Hindu law in the mater, which restricted a woman's estate in inherited property and provided for its devolution as from the last full owner. Sub-section (2) of S. 15 runs thus:

(3.) IF that be so, the present petitioner, that is the sister, cannot claim the outstandings, as the father's heir, to the deceased Kanniammal. As set out above, the case of the petitioner is that Kanniammal, the deceased female, got the property from her father by way of gift and that she is entitled to the same as the father's heir under S. 15 (2) (a) of the Act. As it cannot be said that the property has been inherited by Kanniammal, the exemption cannot be availed of. The rules of devolution provided under S. 15 (1) apply, and the respondents as the heirs of the husband of the deceased female, will take the property. In the circumstances there is no reason for interfering with the order of the learned District Judge.